The purpose of this debate is to open a dialogue to discuss the role of a Christian in the political/social arena. Gay Marriage was chosen as a topic in order to spark lively debate.

Arguments

Within the Christian community there are those that believe that a Christian should not vote against Gay Marriage ballots because it is a secular (Western) society that we live in. With a culture or society there are many values that are held that are either unique to that culture or shared with the broader world culture. As Man is made in the image of God we expect that culture, a creation of man, would show examples of creativity, beauty, and goodness. Unfortunately, because Man is also fallen and we are saddled with a sinful, destructive, and selfish nature than it would follow that Man's creation would also exhibit similar manifestations. What arises from this is cultural values that are good and some that are bad; I will give an example of each.

Women as Property (Historically held in most cultures)
Slavery (Historical, and present)
Materialism (Western)
Disrespect for Elders (Western)
Prejudice (Historical, and present)

Many of these good cultural values are explicitly or implicitly stated in Scripture. Consider the Bible's commandment to respect your father and mother (elders) and the many statements in proverbs praising hard work or conversely condemning laziness. There are other implicit statements in the Bible for the removal of slavery and debt (the Year of Jubilee for example), as well as explicit statements that God desires Justice.

Is this something we should be doing? Analogous to our job to see Man's sinful nature redeemed by God I believe it is our obligation to see the sinful parts of human culture redeemed by God. God desires to be worshiped by people of every tribe, tongue, and nation (Ps 66:1-4, Ps 138:4-5, Zeph 3:9-10, Mal 1:11, Ps 96:7-9, Rev 15:3-4). If we are all to adopt only Western (or any other set) values then there would be no reason why a representative worshiper from every nation should be stressed.

It appears our duty is to keep a culture in tact but still desire to see the peoples hearts changed within it. How is this to be accomplished when Slavery, Spousal Abuse, Materialism, Prejudice and other atrocities occur within a culture? Do we turn a blind eye and continue to speak of the King or must we remove the entire culture and replace it with a better one? I would contest in we pick the second option that there is no "perfect" culture and none is better than another (in general). Westerners should be praised for their righteous values such as Justice and Equality for all people - but they can easily be condemned for their proliferation of pornography in the name of freedom and push for materialism in the name of Christmas.

Historically many unBiblical values have been fought by the Church. Slavery was abolished by Christians (and ultimately a Christian President), and Racial Prejudice was confronted by Martin Luther King Jr., a black minister. There is precedence for redeeming sections of a culture while leaving the bulk of it in tact here in America and in cultures worldwide. So the question is, do Christians have an obligation to vote against gay marriage in a secular society? Considering the explicit condemnation of homosexual acts in both the Old and the New Testament it is obvious that this is not a value that God prizes - in fact it is used as a measure of a society given over to its own sin (Romans 1). From this, I feel it is an imperative of Christians in America to act to preserve what is good within a culture and wrestle against the parts of culture that are manifestations of sins condemned in the Bible.

This of course doesn't stop at voting against homosexual marriage. This continues on to voting for honest politicians, eliminate spending money on useless items, pressing for justice for all people, continuing the fight against racial and sexual prejudice, pushing for gender equality (of worth) in all areas, support for the poor and homeless, and so on. In short, we have a role to redeem both the soul of Man and the world in which he lives. To stop short or to pick only one would be to abandon the full mission of God.

I wish to thank my opponent for this debate challenge and for all the hard work he has so obviously put into his extensive first round argument.

I will leave aside your good/bad cultural values for the time being as I personally find them very general and so not helpful for this debate.. for example the elderly certainly WERE respected in the west until very recently and elderly widows in India are STILL ill-treated to this day.

It seems to me that at the heart of this debate is the question of FREE WILL.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of free will.. they were at one with God.
However, God gave them a choice, to choose free will (the knowledge of good and evil) but warned them that IF they chose free will they would 'surely die.'
Free will then, means the ability to choose evil, this state is generally termed as SIN and is intolerable to God.
When Adam chose to disobey God he separated from God and 'died' spiritually.

The Old Testament is a record (among other things) of God showing the Israelites that no matter HOW many external laws He gave them (see Leviticus/Numbers there were MANY!) or HOW harsh the punishments were for breaking these laws (HARSH!) or however many prophets and miracles etc etc He sent them, It got the Jews absolutely NOWHERE. In fact, what it eventually lead to was the Pharisees executing God for BLASPHEMY.
As Paul of Tarsus so expertly lays out in Romans, what the Law failed to do the Spirit of Jesus Christ resurrected within us DOES.. namely it sets us free to CHOOSE God's will once more.
Are we then to resurrect 'the Law' to accomplish what Christ crucified has already done?

The new testament gives NO political instruction whatsoever. It repeatedly instructs us make disciples of individuals and how to build churches but never nations. How would you enforce ANY law with Christ's standards of behaviour? How could you maintain a prison by 'turning the other cheek'? or even arrest someone?
OR if by some miracle (!) you achieved a perfect Christian society, how would you defend it from attack from outsiders? As soon as you pick up a weapon you betray Christ.
History is littered with heinous crimes committed in the name of our Lord and Saviour (The crusades, the Inquisition, Ireland to name but a few) They ALL betrayed Christ for the 'greater good'.

As Christians our emphasis should be on spreading the good news of Jesus Christ crucified to ALL people.

I appreciate my opponent's response and look forward to his future rebuttal.

Old Testament and the Law

I'm not clear on why Jewish law is meaningful here. Are you implying that the Law God established for the Jewish nation left them on equal ground morally with their neighbors? If you are, you are sadly mistaken. I would argue this, God's unique Law was what set them apart from other nations. God's unique relationship with Israel caused other countries to recognize Israel as having the one true God; namely the gentiles coming to Israel during Solomon's reign as well as Naaman, the foreign dignitary that was healed by Elisha (2 Kings 5). If God did not establish a moral law with Israel than there would be little reason to follow the God of Hebrews over, say, Molech. So therefore that Laws of a country are not without importance - especially if the nation as a whole professes belief in a specific deity. America is perceived by the outside world as being a "Christian Nation". Should not out laws reflect this?

New Testament and Political Instruction

It is absolutely correct that Jesus was more concerned with individuals than He ever was concerned with nation building. What crucial piece of the puzzle you are neglecting to realize is that the God of the Hebrews and the God of the New Testament are one and the same. In the Old Testament, God is very much concerned with how a nation of His people behaved. Is it impossible that God could use a nation to bring glory to Himself again? How much more so when there exists a nation of people run by redeemed humanity.

The verses you use (mainly Matthew 5) to go against Christian nation building are erroneously interpreted. Jesus was not concerned with soldiering or else He would have chastised the Roman Centurion in Luke 7, but instead He praises that Gentile over all of His people - His Disciples included! The verse on turning the other cheek was not Jesus prescribing a new law for His people but rather revealing that the Jewish interpretation of the Law wasn't even right. He was showing that the Hebrews failed even their own laws!

Briefly, the Sermon on the Mount, verses against Anger, Adultery, Repay evil with Good, and so on, are not about establishing a new law (as stated above). If they had been, then you would have seen them all repeated by His disciples in Acts, or even by Paul. But what you find is that, in fact, these "laws" are not repeated and it shows that the Hebrew audience did not understand them as laws. It is better to take those "laws" and see them as descriptions of the kind of actions that Kingdom people do. People of God's Kingdom are to act with love for both God and man (Jesus' actual command) in all their actions (1).

There are situations where "turning the other cheek" is actually the most unloving thing to do. When you ask? How about when your child strikes you on the cheek? Should you turn your other and show your child it is fine to disrespect his father and mother (and thus violate a known law!) or do you discipline your child? If a man breaks into your home, should you stand aside and let him kill/torture/rape your family and thus allow him to wallow in his evil? Or should you stand up and deliver him to punishment so that he has to wallow in his pain and have a chance to turn to God? Not to mention loving your family by offering yourself as a sacrifice for them (Ephesians 5).

Cultural Evils Ought to be Abolished

"At the heart of every culture is an element of self-centeredness, of man's worship of himself. Therefore a culture cannot be brought under the Lordship of Christ without a radical change of allegiance" (2).

Cultures are wedded with our worldviews. In America we believe that all men are born free and equal and are endowed with certain rights. American culture has erroneously asserted in the past that evils are a part of their rights. A few that all people can agree on are: Slavery, Racial Discrimination, and Gender Discrimination. These have been fought against by bible thumping, born again, Jesus-saved-my-soul Christians, were they wrong to do so?

Now, I am assuming at this point that my opponent believes not only that it was right for Christians to oppose those evils but also that they OUGHT to have. In all these cases, the culture violates a command of Jesus - love your neighbor as you love yourself. If my opponent agrees then we agree that we have a moral obligation to see that systematic and pervasive cultural evils are opposed. This does not, however, fulfill the requirements of the resolution. To do so we must establish that Christian ethics also opposes homosexual marriage.

Homosexual Marriage as a Cultural Evil

Homosexual actions violate God's prescribed method of romantic, sexual, and gender interactions. The first human sexual relationship was described as being between a man and a woman. It is affirmed in Leviticus (18) that homosexual actions were to be condemned by the Jewish state. Additionally, in the New Testament, Paul declares that those who participate in homosexual acts are among those that suppress truth in unrighteousness.

Homosexual actions show that a man (or woman) is not only participating in what is evil, but also actively suppressing the truth of God. As homosexual behavior becomes increasingly accepted, then the reality of God becomes less and less clear. This logically follows all the way into homosexual marriage - for at that point the state (and its people) has decided that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.

Let us recap:
Homosexual actions are wrong
Homosexual actions are associated with a suppression of God's truth
Homosexual marriage would increase the acceptance of homosexuality
An increase in homosexuality would increase suppression of God's truth

Imperative

As a Christian we are concerned with revealing God's truth and seeing His authority in this world increase. It is implied that homosexuality will oppose both of these imperatives. Therefore, as Christians we ought to vote against homosexual marriage.

-Y

(1)Willard, Dallas. "The Divine Conspiracy"
(2)Lausanne Committee for World Evangalism. "The Willowbank Report"

Judaic Law.
Christians ought NOT to vote against 'gay' marriage, (or anything else for that matter) simply because we are under a New Covenant: a Covenant of the Spirit.
' But the fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Long suffering, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self control. Against such THERE IS NO LAW. ' GALATIANS 5:22+23
Secular society, being unregenerate, has NO option BUT to operate under 'the Law'.. While many of these laws are now far removed from the original Judaic commands, they ARE directly derived from the 10 commandments.
Of course God IS the same God in both testaments BUT the covenants are absolutely NOT the same. The old testament is simply a document of the FAILURE of 'the Law'.. the Law was perfect but man imperfect so it served only to EXPOSE sin rather than heal it.
This is the reason why Paul was SO virulently opposed to circumcision. The Jews were trying to IMPOSE the Law.. If the Law works then we do NOT need Jesus Christ. It is THAT simple and THAT serious.

Christian principles.
You use an omission (Jesus not admonishing the Centurion) as a proof of doctrinal assertion. This will NOT do Sir.
How many things did Jesus NOT say?
Jesus DID say VERY clearly NOT to resist an evil man, to turn the other cheek if struck etc etc.
You have not addressed HOW you would arrest or detain law breakers.. HOW you would defend your Christian country while still holding to the policy of non-resistance that Christ so clearly advocates?
Let us examine your examples of
(1) A child striking a parent.
and
(2) the intruder who tortures/rapes/murders.
These examples are at EXACT polar opposites of our expected responses.
(1)We are expected to bring our children up to respect and honour us AND the Word of God. We do NOT do evil if we resist or even punish our own children.
(2)We certainly must NOT resist the intruder WHATEVER his intentions. Satan controls the WHOLE world on this principle of 'defending loved ones'.. He uses our love against us.
We must NOT expect justice in this world or in this life.. We may rejoice when it happens.. we must preach the coming JUDGEMENT and the JUST God.
We cannot save this planet, we cannot save America or democracy, we cannot bring back the good ol' days. This world is doomed. We must put our energy and our efforts into spreading the Good news of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion.
Making Laws you cannot, in all conscience, enforce (have you HEARD what goes on in the American prison system?) only re-enforces secular societies view of Christians as a bunch of loveless, red-necked kill-joys..
Instead of wasting our efforts on self-righteous, man-centered 'zombie Christianity (TM)' We need to start praying against these deceiving spirits and spreading His truth.
This war is Spiritual. These problems are Spiritual. The solutions are SPIRITUAL.

My opponents arguments consist of that we "ought not to vote against 'gay' marriage" because Christ is not concerned with the state, and if he was then we would not even be able to defend the state because Christians are called to non-violence. He also desires to assert that the Laws to the Jews served no purpose but to show them they were unrighteous and therefore we should not seek to establish moral laws again.

Sermon on the Mount

First, I will assert that the proper interpretation of Mattew 5:39 is not to do nothing but turn your cheek when an evil man hits you. Jesus was revealing that even the Jews were not righteous (hence him quoting Jewish standards of rightousness) and that God's righteousness was beyond even that of the religious lawmakers of that day. Paul and Jesus asserts that the primary commands of God are to love each other - and there are times when loving the "evil man" does not involve turning the other cheek.

I will again state that it is not loving to "turn the other cheek" if your child hits you, for to do so would be to condone disrespect which is explicitly prohibited by God. I urge voters to ignore my opponents vague statement that "We are expected to bring our children up to respect and honour us AND the Word of God" because how is this to be accomplished if we allow our children to constantly abuse us? Words, with many children, are not enough and appropriate discipline must be taken - my own brother is a fine example of this. To turn the other cheek would be the absolute opposite of any kind of discipline and thus any kind of love. Let us look at a piece of Scripture to show this true: "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly" Proverbs 5:24.

A second example why this verse is not a law against resistance is in the case of a murderer coming into your home to harm your family. As a man you are to provide for your family - this includes all the basic needs of security, food, shelter, water, emotional, and spiritual. A man who does not resist the murderer is going against Scripture:

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" - 1 Timothy 5:8.

The interpretation that Matthew 5:39, and the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount, was made so that even the Jews would know that they violated their own Law and that the new minimum for righteousness in the Kingdom of God was love for God and all men fits seamlessly into the entirety of the commands in the Bible(1). Through the two examples above I have shown that my opponents interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is erroneous, nonsensical, and incompatible with the rest of Scripture.

Christian State

My opponent questions, "HOW you would defend your Christian country while still holding to the policy of non-resistance that Christ so clearly advocates?". I had previously thought that my opponent had read the interpretation of Matthew 5:39 that I had laid out that answered this dilemma, but he had not. So, lets turn to a piece of Scripture that addresses this point exactly - Romans 13:1-7.

"...For [the government] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil..."

From above, it is clear that we are to defend our homes against intruders, we are also to submit to authority and the authority has the right to execute citizens who do wrong. Therefore, I see no issue with a Christian nation defending its borders against outsides nor executing those who do evil. Scripture asserts both rights.

Last Argument Rebuttals

"Making Laws you cannot, in all conscience, enforce..."

Should we rather have no laws then? If we ought not vote against gay marriage - should we then vote against laws that punish murderers since murder is forbidden in the Bible? We also cannot catch all murderers - should we stop all together?

"Instead of wasting our efforts on self-righteous..we need to start praying against these deceiving spirits and spreading His truth. This war is Spiritual. These problems are Spiritual. The solutions are SPIRITUAL."

This comment is extremely offensive and also incorrect. All our problems are not Spiritual. Tell the man who doesn't have food to eat that all he needs is God - it does nothing for his starving body. If you are going to quote Ephesians to refute this, then I'd suggest you flip to James and read it before making such a completely one-sided comment.

Culture

Finally, I must take this back to the issue at hand and also say that my opponent has not refuted my previous points on culture. He has so far only attempted to show that it is impossible for a Christian nation to defend itself or enfore laws - a completely erroneous view. I restate my previous points here and hope that my opponent has some defense against them (though, waiting for the last round to refute these is a bit disingenuous).

"At the heart of every culture is an element of self-centeredness, of man's worship of himself. Therefore a culture cannot be brought under the Lordship of Christ without a radical change of allegiance" (2).

Within a culture or society there are many values that are held that are either unique to that culture or shared with the broader world culture. As Man is made in the image of God we expect that culture, a creation of man, would show examples of creativity, beauty, and goodness. Unfortunately, because Man is also fallen and we are saddled with a sinful, destructive, and selfish nature than it would follow that Man's creation would also exhibit similar manifestations. What arises from this is cultural values that are good and some that are bad.

Jesus tells us that we are to be the "salt of the earth" and thus act as a preservative for our culture. "Christian living (like salt in the meat) is quite important to keep culture from degrading..."(3). Therefore, analogous to our job to see Man's sinful nature redeemed by God it is our obligation to see the sinful parts of human culture redeemed by God. God desires to be worshiped by people of every tribe, tongue, and nation (Ps 66:1-4, Ps 138:4-5, Zeph 3:9-10, Mal 1:11, Ps 96:7-9, Rev 15:3-4). If we are all to adopt only Western (or any other set) values then there would be no reason why a representative worshiper from every nation should be stressed.

Homosexual Marriage as a Cultural Evil

Homosexual actions violate God's prescribed method of romantic, sexual, and gender interactions. The first human sexual relationship was described as being between a man and a woman. It is affirmed in Leviticus (18) that homosexual actions were to be condemned by the Jewish state. Additionally, in the New Testament, Paul declares that those who participate in homosexual acts are among those that suppress truth in unrighteousness.

Homosexual actions show that a man (or woman) is not only participating in what is evil, but also actively suppressing the truth of God. As homosexual behavior becomes increasingly accepted, then the reality of God becomes less and less clear. This logically follows all the way into homosexual marriage - for at that point the state (and its people) has decided that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.

Imperative

As a Christian we are concerned with revealing God's truth and seeing His authority in this world increase. It is implied that homosexuality will oppose both of these imperatives. Therefore, as Christians we ought to vote against homosexual marriage.

(1)Willard, Dallas. "The Divine Conspiracy"
(2)Lausanne Committee for World Evangalism. "The Willowbank Report"
(3)Keller, Tim. "Cities and Salt: Counter-Cultures for the Common Good"

"He also desires to assert that the Laws to the Jews served no purpose but to show them they were unrighteous and therefore we should not seek to establish moral laws again."

" Jesus was revealing that even the Jews were not righteous (hence him quoting Jewish standards of rightousness) and that God's righteousness was beyond even that of the religious lawmakers of that day."

I'll leave the above statements of my opponents to speak for themselves.

I have made a CLEAR distinction between bringing up children (we are permitted to use force) and resisting an EVIL man. (we are NOT permitted to use force) For my opponent to pretend otherwise is simply not cricket.

To stretch 1Timothy 5:8 to include home defence is a bridge too far, You're twisting scripture for your own purposes.. a VERY bad idea. 'Provide' is NOT 'defend' by ANY stretch of the imagination.
Where is GOD in all this? IF I obey His commands and His Word then I fully expect NOT to be burlarised etc..
This idea of defence is ALWAYS taken too far.. If every country only defended their own country then HOW could there be any wars? if no-one left their own country to attack but ONLY defended?

Romans 13:1-7 Is clearly talking about submission TO authority.. NOT what authorities role is. Again, you are taking scripture out of context. When we interpret scripture we MUST take the easiest and simplest interpretation possible.. otherwise we create cults where we need others to 'show us the way'.. dangerous ground.

A much better scripture for our purposes would be..

1 Corinthians 5:12 (New International Version)
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

or..

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (New International Version)
Lawsuits Among Believers
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

I need comment no further.

The fact that some of my statements have been deemed offensive from someone who uses a hammer and sickle as there user icon is of NO consequence to me.

The law cannot work on the unregenerated, to pretend otherwise is to deny the work of calvary.

It's a good job you're so sensitive..
It gets you out of answering 1COR5:12 (you cannot)
It get's you out of defending your icon (you cannot)
It get's you out of defending calling me 'extremely offensive'.. for being Spiritual! (again..)

I have no problem with you personally.. this is the internet, by it's very nature it is not personal, all we get from each other is what we CHOOSE to allow each other to see. (icons, measured arguments etc)

Though I am sure you will take this as defeat, I have no desire to defend myself from the rest of your comments after you have decided to insult me multiple times without warrant. I have probably typed things here that have a "tone" to them, but I have honestly written nothing in anger or judgment towards you Datcmoto. I sincerely apologize if that is how they came across - it was not my intention in the least.

Doubtful.. I would normally shy away from questioning another Christian's honesty but for you I'm willing to make an exception.

"Secondly, I don't think I was taking Timothy out of context at all."

Provide is NOT defend.. You have not mentioned 1Corinthians 6:12 ; "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"
Just HOW much more explicit do you need? That scripture ALONE wins me the debate, HOWEVER people vote.

"Third, I am not a communist (I just find the icon hilarious)"

How much do you know about Stalin? or the Russian regime? (not to mention Mao, Pol Pot etc etc)
Stalin made Hitler look like a choir boy and YOU think it's 'hilarious'? That guy sometimes spent the whole day doing nothing BUT sign death warrants, sometimes for whole communities at the stroke of a pen. For someone who believes in politics as strongly as you do, you sure do have a sick sense of humour.

MY theology comes from a simple no-nonsense reading of the Gospels.
The central message is one of SURRENDER.

Yeah, I didn't have the room to talk about the Jewish laws again. I was going to emphasize that they were everything to the Jews and were an indication of them of God's favor and unique relationship. They also served a purpose of causing the Jews to be a light to the surrounding nations - they didn't practice grotesque sacrifices or commit adultery, etc. I just didn't have the space.

Secondly, I don't think I was taking Timothy out of context at all.

Third, I am not a communist (I just find the icon hilarious) and I am not looking to create a Christian state - I fully agree that that is a hopeless goal.

Finally, I am not trying to force anyone into my theology. I give arguments for what I think, and if they are reasonable to you and fit into scripture better than another set of propositions, then I think you have an obligation to accept them. Oh, and "my" theology comes from well respected Christian authors - does yours?

"'we will not be morally free'.. there, you said it. That is how we started."

Because we will probably end up like that doesn't mean we started as that. Does a tree start as a tree - or does it start as a seed? Knowing the end (which in actuality we don't) doesn't necessarily mean we know the beginning.

I agree with IT on this, moral freedom was necessary for Adam to do what is evil. A man cannot choose to kneel unless he is allowed to stand up. Also, I cannot believe that we can know much of what it is like to not have a fallen nature. It is wedded to us so tightly that we are called to die to be free of it. I think it is entirely possible that being born perfect is something we, as broken men, cannot fathom - much like a fish cannot fathom being a giraffe.

'we will not be morally free'.. there, you said it. That is how we started. God gave us a choice to be 'free'.. with a warning that freedom is DEATH. Paul constantly describes himself as a 'slave of Jesus Christ'.. This is one of the central paradoxes of reality, that unless we are a slave to the One source of Goodness and freedom, we cannot be free.
A (one) free choice is not the same as free (multiple) choice..
The 'knowledge of good & evil' is the scriptual basis for my very sound doctrine.
I can go a little further even.. It is this free will, this delusion that we can 'know' what is good, what is evil WITHOUT God, that is abhorrent to Him.. That is why we NEED the Bible, because without it any number of things 'seem' OK to us..
It is not so much that we sin.. we ARE sin. Even our 'good' deeds are 'as filthy rags' to an utterly Holy Creator.

That implies that we have the ability to die in the next life. Quite Frankly, I don't know much of anything about the next life. I tend to think that we will not be morally free creatures in the next life.

It seems we are not understanding each other. I cannot see how it is possible for a choice to be made freely if he does not have the free will to do so. If you see no contradiction, you may believe that as you like - but as far as scripture goes, as doctrine, your view is not sound. It can neither be clearly substantiated in scripture nor adequately shown as a logically possibility.

BUT they did not have free will in the sense that we understand it.. I'm not EXCUSING them if that is what you are worried about, if anything it was much clearer to Adam because he was starting from a place of spiritual purity.. AND there was only ONE thing he may not do.
Today, even though I'm born again, I am still 'free' to do anything.. this is BECAUSE Adam ate the fruit.. free will is a CURSE.
I ask you again, will we be 'free' to murder etc in the next life?